In, Out, Shake It All About: January 2025 Transfer Window

[TANGODANCER]

Irrespective of his signings , or otherwise, the best bit of business we did in the last transfer window was holding on to Morley who in my very humble opinion has been exceptional since his return

I agree K, but could that be because those around him are below par and he stands out as an example? There's quite a bit of room for improvement all round.

[Bertie Wooster]

I wonder if Markham's replacement is someone who Schumacher knows or has previously been recommended to him ?

This is good timing as it gives the new person time to work with SS over the next few months in identifying players that SS wants, and be ready for when the summer window opens.

[BWFC_Insane]

I wonder if Markham's replacement is someone who Schumacher knows or has previously been recommended to him ?

This is good timing as it gives the new person time to work with SS over the next few months in identifying players that SS wants, and be ready for when the summer window opens.

But isn’t the structure that the sporting director is over the top of the head coach? So it would be odd for it to be up to Schumacher to decide.

[sonicthewhite]

Maybe it's not a case of Schumacher deciding but a case of him making a very strong suggestion to who he would recommend?

[Bertie Wooster]

I wonder if Markham's replacement is someone who Schumacher knows or has previously been recommended to him ?

This is good timing as it gives the new person time to work with SS over the next few months in identifying players that SS wants, and be ready for when the summer window opens.

But isn’t the structure that the sporting director is over the top of the head coach? So it would be odd for it to be up to Schumacher to decide.

Has it been confirmed that the club will recruit another Sporting Director ?. Perhaps this time they will recruit a head of recruitment type instead.

[Prufrock]

Might be Ludonautics getting more involved on recruitment, and maybe a more admin-y type replacement.

[Mar]

I really don’t think you can point at Owen Beck as a failure. The lad is currently playing at the top end of the Championship, and if rumours are to be believed, will be in the Prem next season.

It's not that I consider him to be a bad player. Or indeed that he is the worst of Markham's signings. I think he probably comes under the mates rates signings given he's friends with Conor Bradley. If he's been signed to keep Bradley happy then great, but it didn't seem a good signing given that there's no chance of a long terms signing on a free and the inflated Liverpool prices would've likely put us off the actual transfer. Add to that his performances were sub par (same as Ramsay) and you could raise a few eyebrows.

Still, I wouldn't blame a youngster for bad performances, they're a risk that doesn't necessarily pay off and are generally just used for cover. Afolayan's the perfect example of getting them at the right time in their contract.

And if Beck is to be in the Premiership next season, it's certainly not the Beck we witnessed.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Iles saying Schumacher will stay as Head Coach under a Markham replacement, and has suggested names in the frame could include Neil Dewsnip, who left Plymouth last month (way before Schumacher was appointed).

Dewsnip's another Evertonian, whose dad Jimmy coached at ours in the 90s under Bruce and Colin before cancer took him at 59 - Rioch and David Lee were pall-bearers. Neil Dewsnip was hired by Plymouth just after Lowe and Schumacher, and did good work off the field as they gathered two promotions, but his last two coach hires (Ian Foster and Wayne Rooney) did terribly and dragged him down. Funny how it goes.

[BWFC_Insane]

Iles saying Schumacher will stay as Head Coach under a Markham replacement, and has suggested names in the frame could include Neil Dewsnip, who left Plymouth last month (way before Schumacher was appointed).

Dewsnip's another Evertonian, whose dad Jimmy coached at ours in the 90s under Bruce and Colin before cancer took him at 59 - Rioch and David Lee were pall-bearers. Neil Dewsnip was hired by Plymouth just after Lowe and Schumacher, and did good work off the field as they gathered two promotions, but his last two coach hires (Ian Foster and Wayne Rooney) did terribly and dragged him down. Funny how it goes.

If the idea is to bring in someone Schuey has worked with then to me it could suggest that Schuey’s opinion on the current setup was sought by the board.

And here is the thing with this setup - if managers or head coaches work well with some directors and not others as evidenced here and maybe as you say at Plymouth - one wonders how much continuity it really offers. I can see it where the board view the sporting director as infallible and are completely sure of their pick - but feels less sure if managerial changes prompt director changes or visa versa.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

If the idea is to bring in someone Schuey has worked with then to me it could suggest that Schuey’s opinion on the current setup was sought by the board.

And here is the thing with this setup - if managers or head coaches work well with some directors and not others as evidenced here and maybe as you say at Plymouth - one wonders how much continuity it really offers. I can see it where the board view the sporting director as infallible and are completely sure of their pick - but feels less sure if managerial changes prompt director changes or visa versa.

It's a valid point, but as usual in life the best course is probably somewhere in the middle.

In-baked infallibility at any level is a bad idea: we should all be accountable. On the other hand, if you're going to change one position every time you change the other, as you say there's not much continuity - often cited as one of the main reasons for the division of labour, although you could argue that being a club-wide "manager" is too big a job now (how much attention can you really pay to the youth system, for example, if you're also heading transfer negotiations)?

Plymouth replaced Schumacher with Ian Foster (who quietly failed) and then Rooney (who noisily did). Dewsnip was as foursquare behind Foster as Gartside was behind Lee, and his Evertonian roots led to most fans believing Rooney was also his pick - although some say it was CEO Andrew Parkinson's idea, he must have at least acquiesced. Two successive bad appointments and fingers will point; that's probably fair enough, and certainly three would prompt major questions.

I dunno. It really depends what the reach and remit are. As JMJHB says, Markham's job was more than just inputting data requests into spreadsheets. You probably want your DoF (or sporting director or whatever) to bring your overarching club ethos of coaching and style, but it helps if they have connections that can make transfers happen. The question of where the buck stops still hangs above it all.

[The_Gun]

I’d be a little uncomfortable if it ends up being Dewsnip, as he seems too close to Schumacher (I believe he taught him at school).

I’m sure Ludonautics are well connected in those circles, so hopefully they can help lineup some really high calibre candidates.

[jimbo]

I really don’t think you can point at Owen Beck as a failure. The lad is currently playing at the top end of the Championship, and if rumours are to be believed, will be in the Prem next season.

Does that not highlight the problem though? Beck wasn’t the right player to help move us on at the time. Maybe the data showed he had loads of potential but that obscures that we needed a player who improved us to help push us up. And he was a loan player.

If you are signing 19/20/21 year olds (that’s the age if you want to improve them and make profits) you need to own them, develop them and sell them. You also have to be realistic that you might be successful on the pitch doing so but that the model of re sale means you won’t always be.

If you are signing players a few years older than that who have already established themselves you expect them to make you better. And that judgement is more than a player and their data it’s a lot of complex intangibles - and needs and relies on experience and judgement.

We’ve never operated a moneyball strategy in the way say Posh do. And I will be honest I don’t think we can. Not a club as big as ours in league one without bazillions to spend.

Beck didn’t work out, but I think it’s been evidenced since that it wasn’t an appalling decision to get him here. He’s obviously got talent and came here for his first loan. If you follow your logic from the post we also don’t sign Bradley, who very much did work out. Beck can just be filed as a ‘moss’ but not a failure of process. As many have said, you’ll never have a system where they all work out.

[jimbo]

NLundulu will always be the one that baffles me. There was nothing shown in his loan spell that made any fan confident he’d develop into they player we needed. Lord knows why we sogned him permanently.

[Worthy4England]

That's where I have some issues with it DSB, as oft cited. In general terms, I'm sorta ok with a Club having a broad ethos, but there has there has to be a recognition that underneath that there's the written word and what's actually happening. There was a long discussion (in fact there's been about 10 years of it) after United's latest loss against Spurs. Writing stuff on the paper is all well and good, but the where the buck stops part is where I have most issue. When I look at Utd's managers since red-nose, they've had far too many that should be able to put a decent spin together on the pitch, but most haven't. That's all largely been dumped at the "Managers door" - but half of them are following a strategy that just hasn't been deliverable. Whatever your ethos about coaching is, (in a Utd context), you'd have to have players who buy into it, not just a manager. Rashford is a decent case in point - not too close to what's gone on, but do we reckon he's been following the ethos around coaching? Popular narrative would suggest maybe not, for a long while, so why did he not get moved on?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

NLundulu will always be the one that baffles me. There was nothing shown in his loan spell that made any fan confident he’d develop into they player we needed. Lord knows why we sogned him permanently.

Agreed. We'd pretty much all seen Nowt Much in his loan... maybejustmaybe as a freebie you can see the "project" value, but paying for him was very odd.

Journalistically I have no evidence, but as a fan I can't shake the feeling that Nlundulu was a signing pushed through by Evatt's faith/hubris; you can add others to that list. Maybe that's part of the break-up, though. All signings carry risk, so when you get a volume of them they add to the confirmation bias. Nobody thought loaning Beck was a bad idea at the time. Few people gleefully warming their hands on Markham's bonfire have thanked him for Trafford, Baxter, Bradley, Cogz, Forrester, Toal, Sheehan, Morley, Schon, Charles, pick your own. As ever, the truth is probably somewhere between the best and worst of all possible worlds.

[BWFC_Insane]

If the idea is to bring in someone Schuey has worked with then to me it could suggest that Schuey’s opinion on the current setup was sought by the board.

And here is the thing with this setup - if managers or head coaches work well with some directors and not others as evidenced here and maybe as you say at Plymouth - one wonders how much continuity it really offers. I can see it where the board view the sporting director as infallible and are completely sure of their pick - but feels less sure if managerial changes prompt director changes or visa versa.

It's a valid point, but as usual in life the best course is probably somewhere in the middle.

In-baked infallibility at any level is a bad idea: we should all be accountable. On the other hand, if you're going to change one position every time you change the other, as you say there's not much continuity - often cited as one of the main reasons for the division of labour, although you could argue that being a club-wide "manager" is too big a job now (how much attention can you really pay to the youth system, for example, if you're also heading transfer negotiations)?

Plymouth replaced Schumacher with Ian Foster (who quietly failed) and then Rooney (who noisily did). Dewsnip was as foursquare behind Foster as Gartside was behind Lee, and his Evertonian roots led to most fans believing Rooney was also his pick - although some say it was CEO Andrew Parkinson's idea, he must have at least acquiesced. Two successive bad appointments and fingers will point; that's probably fair enough, and certainly three would prompt major questions.

I dunno. It really depends what the reach and remit are. As JMJHB says, Markham's job was more than just inputting data requests into spreadsheets. You probably want your DoF (or sporting director or whatever) to bring your overarching club ethos of coaching and style, but it helps if they have connections that can make transfers happen. The question of where the buck stops still hangs above it all.

I think the issues with the setup as worthy says are accountability and indeed responsibility. That may be clear internally but I fear also many situations where that clarity can become muddled.

A director of football who completely runs the football side, builds culture and ethos and is solely responsible for all football appointments to the coaching staff and works with them as they see fit to recruit the right profiles is clear. It’s a change of structure but it’s a clear way of working. They report to the board and are outwardly facing.

Then there is the old way where a manager does that and builds the culture and ethos and appoints their team. That doesn’t of course differ in many cases significantly from the structure above in reality. Allardyce appointed Forde as his performance director who did many of the things a director of football would do but just less from an inside football point of view. But Forde was in many ways top of his field compared to Sam who was not at the time. Sam would I guess have his own recruitment team which divorces that role from director level but still.

Fundamentally those are just two structural visions for running a club that are more or less the same.

I think where the issues come is where a DoF doesn’t have the control and the board or CEO make decisions on the football side too. This begins to get messy. Not saying this happened but just as an example say Markham was tasked with finding a new manager wanted option A, but Sharon was urged by other board members to get option B. And that doesn’t have to even be a formal thing. It could be an informal thing where well meaning folk get in each others way. A chairman appoints a manager and takes the responsibility since they have to manage their daily demands and work with them. Whereas in this setup it’s possible a head coach never sees the board or inputs into decision making at that level yet easy to see the board wanting to intervene.

Not suggesting that has happened here but these things go on in football.

Let’s take a scenario that is more than possible. Say Schumacher comes in and the board after a week or so ask him ‘is this squad good enough to win promotion’ and his answer is ‘no’. Suddenly the position of a DoF who has assembled it becomes vulnerable. Equally goes the other way. If the board ask a DoF whether the manager is doing it or not - it can compromise the position especially if manager was DoF’s pick.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

That's where I have some issues with it DSB, as oft cited. In general terms, I'm sorta ok with a Club having a broad ethos, but there has there has to be a recognition that underneath that there's the written word and what's actually happening. There was a long discussion (in fact there's been about 10 years of it) after United's latest loss against Spurs. Writing stuff on the paper is all well and good, but the where the buck stops part is where I have most issue. When I look at Utd's managers since red-nose, they've had far too many that should be able to put a decent spin together on the pitch, but most haven't. That's all largely been dumped at the "Managers door" - but half of them are following a strategy that just hasn't been deliverable. Whatever your ethos about coaching is, (in a Utd context), you'd have to have players who buy into it, not just a manager. Rashford is a decent case in point - not too close to what's gone on, but do we reckon he's been following the ethos around coaching? Popular narrative would suggest maybe not, for a long while, so why did he not get moved on?

United has been an absolute bodice-ripper of a succession crisis, compounded by ever-worse managerial decisions. It's wonderful to watch.

Haven't got the time to go into it now but David Squires' "hive brain" cartoons in the Guardian sum it up - everyone has authority, nobody has responsibility.

[Worthy4England]

That's where I have some issues with it DSB, as oft cited. In general terms, I'm sorta ok with a Club having a broad ethos, but there has there has to be a recognition that underneath that there's the written word and what's actually happening. There was a long discussion (in fact there's been about 10 years of it) after United's latest loss against Spurs. Writing stuff on the paper is all well and good, but the where the buck stops part is where I have most issue. When I look at Utd's managers since red-nose, they've had far too many that should be able to put a decent spin together on the pitch, but most haven't. That's all largely been dumped at the "Managers door" - but half of them are following a strategy that just hasn't been deliverable. Whatever your ethos about coaching is, (in a Utd context), you'd have to have players who buy into it, not just a manager. Rashford is a decent case in point - not too close to what's gone on, but do we reckon he's been following the ethos around coaching? Popular narrative would suggest maybe not, for a long while, so why did he not get moved on?

United has been an absolute bodice-ripper of a succession crisis, compounded by ever-worse managerial decisions. It's wonderful to watch.

Haven't got the time to go into it now but David Squires' "hive brain" cartoons in the Guardian sum it up - everyone has authority, nobody has responsibility.

And that last part is where I have the real issue! We had people pointing at Evatt - quite rightly so. But I'm not at all sure about how much was driven by the Director of Football or whatever badge they wear....

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Haven't got the time to go into it now but David Squires' "hive brain" cartoons in the Guardian sum it up - everyone has authority, nobody has responsibility.

And that last part is where I have the real issue! We had people pointing at Evatt - quite rightly so. But I'm not at all sure about how much was driven by the Director of Football or whatever badge they wear....

Absolutely - lines of responsibility have to be clear. But even if they are, it's not easy.

For instance, at Stoke, where Walters was appointed DoF above Schumacher after Schuey was already there... so who gets the hook when they have a few average games? History shows it's Schumacher, but then Walters' immediate 'leftfield foreign coach' replacement Pelach was a disaster. So does that mean if his next pick - the very different Mark Robins (who said continuity was important?) - is also poor, Walters is also at risk? I guess so.

Ultimately, what happens on the pitch is up to the manager (or head coach) making the right decisions. The more say he has on transfers, the less he can hide behind that particular excuse. Similarly, if a DoF (or similar) says "this is the right guy for me" then it's got to wound his reputation if the guy sucks ass.

[Bijou Bob]

Sharon has quite close links to Mark Noble who is currently SD at West Ham and a club legend. I’d love to see us appoint someone with contacts in the modern game at that sort of level. Over the past few seasons, our competitors, most notably that lot down the A58, have consistently unearthed quality signings where we could be said to have struggled somewhat.

We were said to be looking more towards the European market and Schön has presumably been a product of that, which begs the question, “Why has he been the only one”? Portugal, Scandinavia and Ireland are all turning out decent, technically gifted players these days whilst having leagues which pay far below what players can expect in the UK. Someone with contacts in the game at a decent level might just be able to push our recruitment to the point where we need it to be. Survival in the Championship should we ever get promoted, is incredibly difficult, as Derby, Argyle and Pompey are finding out. Our recruitment needs to be forward thinking so we can compete and survive there.